Guest blog post by Lucy Anns, research and advocacy assistant in the European office of Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW).

On 14 March, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that companies can ban their employees from wearing the headscarf as long as it is part of a company ‘neutrality’ policy which requests staff to dress ‘neutrally’. The court stated that this ruling did not constitute direct discrimination against any particular religion or belief as all visible religious and political symbols must be prohibited under the regulation. On the surface, the ruling seems to be a positive case for the equal treatment of staff in the face of a controversial issue. However, in analysing the rationale, it becomes evident that the ruling, in pursuit of neutrality, is in fact violating the right to freedom of religion and belief, a fundamental human right.

Although the judgement does not constitute ‘direct discrimination’, the court stated that it may constitute ‘indirect discrimination’ if people of a particular faith are put at a disadvantage. Prohibiting the Islamic headscarf, often seen as a Qu’ran-instructed obligatory garment although there is some debate here, in contrast to the cross or the crucifix, certainly seems to suggest ‘indirect discrimination’. The court, on the other hand, argued that indirect discrimination is permissible if it is justified by a legitimate aim i.e. neutrality, providing that the means of achieving the aim are necessary and appropriate. Two questions must be asked here. The first is whether the right to freedom of religion and belief, a right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which permits the wearing of religious symbols, can be limited to preserve ‘neutrality’. If this is the case, then the second question which follows is whether outlawing all religious and political symbols is a necessary and appropriate means of achieving neutrality.

According to Article 18 (3) of the ICCPR, limitations to freedom of religion and belief must be prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Aiming to preserve neutrality amongst staff is certainly not in aid of protecting public safety, order or health, and is only tenuously linked to protecting public morals. Preserving neutrality could be used, however, as justification for protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of others if those freedoms were obstructed by bias or prejudice. However, this brings us to the second question: are the means of achieving the aim necessary and appropriate?

Visibly banning all political and religious symbols in the pursuit of neutrality is neither necessary nor appropriate. It implies that a Muslim who wishes to wear a headscarf or a Christian who wishes to wear a cross are in someway not neutral, and are therefore disrupting the neutrality of a company. On the contrary, everyone holds their own individual beliefs and opinions which would make them ‘partial’, and everyone has the right to manifest these. Furthermore, since these symbols in no way constitute bias nor prejudice and therefore do not obstruct the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, prohibiting visible religious and political symbols as a way of preserving neutrality is unjustifiable. In light of this, although the policy of neutrality itself might be seen as a legitimate aim and even as a possible limitation on freedom of religion, the ban on visible religious and political symbols is neither a necessary nor appropriate means of achieving this aim.

In conclusion, the ruling that companies can ban their employees from wearing the headscarf as long as it is part of a company ‘neutrality’ policy, is a violation of freedom of religion and belief, a fundamental human right. Moreover, in the context of European elections where right-wing parties are latching on to issues of immigration, integration, and identity, this judgement will only exacerbate already existing tensions between Europe’s Muslim and non-Muslim communities. The perceived view that religious belief and its manifestation is at best incomprehensible and at worst incompatible with European values is already noticeable at the local and the national level. Now it seems to have permeated the European level. It is time that we stop treating the right to freedom of religion and belief as a second class right and acknowledge it as a right equal to and fundamental to all other human rights.

For those who don't blog... yet. Dip your toes into the European blogosphere by simply submitting your articles to this blog. Then, it will be published soon after approval and will be seen on Blogactiv and in the EU blogosphere. Click here to learn

About: The Guest Blog

Would You Like To Post Your Thoughts About EU Policy On Blogactiv?

Would You Like Your Opinions To Be Visible To Our Community Of European Policy Experts?

If you would, the Guest Blog is the place for you!

The Guest Blog is place for people that want to do more than comment on the post of a blogger, but do not wish to actually start their own blog.

The Guest Blog is open to individuals and organisations to publish their EU affairs content. However, please note that we will not publish press releases or satellite posts designed simply for linking purposes.

There are many good reasons to publish on Blogactiv, including:

Simple publishing. It takes only a few seconds to send your content to us.

Moderation. Because we moderate content on the platform, the quality is generally very high meaning that your opinions will be seen along with those of other thought leaders about the EU.

Influence. Blogactiv is widely read in Brussels by EU influencers and experts.

Visibility. Your post will be syndicated through the capitals of Europe by our RSS feed system.

Our community. The European blogosphere is a relatively small place and many of the main contributers read and react on Blogactiv. Your post can be a part of the active discussion.